"I simply do not think that people deserve to be punished for being wealthy even if they can afford it. I myself aspire to be counted among the wealthy one day, and I would like to have control over my own money. Not because I am selfish, but because I would like to have more of a say in who I help with the fruits of my labor."

There it is in a nutshell. The rich get what they want by dangling a stale carrot before the destitute.

So sayeth the thief to the rube, "One day you might be rich, and if that day comes, won't you be mad to have to pay [shock] 33% in taxes! Oh the humanity!"

Wrap yourself around this one, coolaid walmartians. You won't get rich following their rules.

But this isn't about getting rich or the morality of paying higher taxes. This is about the survival of the economy. Too much concentration of wealth wrecks the economy. The 95/5 rule, when 5% control 95%, kaboom.

Are we there yet?

I appreciate you explicity affirming my long-held suspicions that "Conservative" ideology is based on faulty data, false premises, and hypocricy. I'm sure selfishness is in there as well.

Conservatives are the crazy aunt in the attic, hell-bent on burning down our collective house. Time to use a tranquilizer gun so we can take away their gasoline and matches.

If you're having trouble deciding if waterboarding is torture, or if waterboarding is moral, please let me know and we can arrange a private education session.

This country has rules. Because of those rules we can claim the moral high ground. Because of those rules we get to throw hissie fits when things don't go our way. Because of those rules, we have friends.

When we bend those rules, we invite the scrutiny of our friends and cause them to question the partnership. When we break those rules, we lose the moral high ground and become indistinguishable from other bad guys.

If you find this pedantry irritating in its condescension, then imagine how I feel having to explain to adults one of the fundamentals everyone should have learned in kindergarden. -- The ends do not justify the means. --

I realize the moral ambiguity strains your poor little minds, so I'll be gentle.

Kindly fuck off.

When is Reid going to follow his conscience and switch to the party that warms his heart?

How is this different than what Joe Lieberman did? How about the Dems actually run a Democrat in the race instead of some almost-palatable lite-beer DINO-masquerading-Rethuglican?

How about the Congress stop being an elite social club that protects its own? How about if that body of elected representatives starts instead representing the citizens of their districts instead of their actual constituents, the lobbyists and corporations.

Just a thought.

A perfect example of how something isn't a zero sum game. Spector's move hurts the power-hungry GOP who need every single vote so they can be obstructionist (not counting their greatest vote, Harry Reid).

Spector's move hurts liberals and progressives in the Democratic Party because the general public sees this for what it is, for what Spector admitted, a simply selfish move. What's the difference between "D" and "R" if a guy simply moves from one to the other with no change in behavior?

"Maybe 2010 will be a real watershed year when the Democrats shed their DINOS, the Repugs shed their RINOS, and we can settle down and really get something done."

I certainly hope so, but as they say, let's keep it real. The Dems aren't going to voluntarily grow a spine. We're going to have to kick some ass and clean house. Battered wife syndrome isn't something from which one recovers, quickly, much less instantly.

The other problem is the ever-growing ranks of DINOs. I still don't get why anyone is excited about Spector changing insignia. Today's vote is a perfect example. Who's knob did he polish to get seniority?

Is it too much to ask that the press behave as adults? I hear other countries have managed to achieve a public dialog somewhere north of the 3rd grade level.

That Obama will nominate a "liberal". Ya right. You think the crowd in Congress with "D" behind their names are anything close to "liberal"? Maybe the newly christened Dem senator from PA will lead the fight for the next Thurgood Marshall, someone to stem the tide of heinous activist Conservatives on the court.

Sure.

a) gives hope that maybe the DC politburo isn't omnipetent in the realm of politics,

b) begs for a link for contributions.

Sestak got it right. Local voters should be making the decision about their representation, not DC. This is about an exclusive club protecting one of their own.

And yes, I know Hilton isn't qualified.

"Based on his previous comments and his personal agenda we can expect the president to appoint a black, lesbian, terrorist-loving, hater of capitalism, unattractive female to fill Souter place on the court."

Yes, the real problem today in politics is the dearth of hotties. We need some smokin' hot JILFs and PILFs. You know, some vacuous deer-in-the-headlights big-boobied big-hair blondes. Brunettes are okay too, but those red-heads ... meh, they're just too emotional.

Until we get Miss CA into office, we need to mandate pumpkin-sized implants and botox for all female public figures. I know, I know, dear readers, you may be skeptical, but I guarantee this will improve the level of public discourse over what we had for the last 8 years.

May I suggest a (surprise unannounced) all expense paid vacation to Gitmo? No need to have someone pack clothes or sunscreen, there are plenty of orange jump suits and head bags.

On the other hand, if she's sincerely experienced a change of heart (not likely), then maybe the only thing we need to do to get Congress in line is remind them of what it's like to not have Constitutional protections. Wiretap the entire Congress!